Effectiveness of Continued Ranibizumab Therapy in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration versus Switch to Aflibercept: Real World Evidence.

PURPOSE: To assess the long-term comparative effectiveness of ranibizumab versus switching to aflibercept in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). DESIGN: A 24-month, retrospective, comparative, nonrandomized, matched cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with nAMD initiated on ranibizumab who remained (nonswitchers) or who switched to aflibercept (switchers) captured from a United States electronic medical records database between July 1, 2011 and October 12, 2014. METHODS: Patient eyes were matched for baseline age, baseline visual acuity (VA), VA at month 3, and duration of follow-up. Matching ratio was 1:2 (switchers: nonswitchers) where possible and 1:1 otherwise. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was VA change from baseline (first injection of ranibizumab) to month 24. Secondary end points were standardized area under the curve of VA change; patient eyes (%) gaining or losing ≥5, ≥10, or ≥15 letters, or with VA of >73 letters at month 24; number of injections and monitoring visits; and analysis of preswitch characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 454 switchers and 750 matched nonswitchers were included. The adjusted difference in mean VA change from baseline to month 24 for switchers to nonswitchers was 0.02 letters (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.63 to 1.68). The upper bound 95% CI (1.68) was below the predefined noninferiority margin of 5 letters. Switchers had a significantly higher annualized number of mean total visits compared with nonswitchers (10.0 vs. 9.0 for year 1; 8.7 vs. 7.4 for year 2), a higher number of injection visits (8.4 vs. 6.7 for year 1; 7.0 vs. 5.1 for year 2), but a lower number of monitoring-only visits (1.6 vs. 2.3 for year 1; 1.7 vs. 2.3 for year 2). During the preswitch period, switchers had a higher number of injection visits (7.6 vs. 6.5), fewer monitoring-only visits (1.5 vs. 2.2), and comparable total visits (9.1 vs. 8.7). Visual acuity change from baseline to switch was similar between switchers and nonswitchers (adjusted least squares mean difference, -1.36 letters; 95% CI, -2.76 to 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Switching patients from ranibizumab to aflibercept resulted in no difference in VA change compared with those maintained on ranibizumab only. The lower retreatment rate in nonswitchers compared with switchers post switch does not support the view of a longer treatment efficacy.

A Retrospective Study of Ranibizumab Treatment Regimens for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (nAMD) in Australia and the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is the leading cause of vision loss among persons aged 65 years and older. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment is the recommended standard of care. The current study compares the effectiveness of ranibizumab in routine clinical practice in two countries that generally apply two different treatment regimens, treat-and-extend (T&E) in Australia or pro re nata (PRN) in the UK. METHODS: This retrospective, comparative, non-randomised cohort study is based on patients' data from electronic medical record (EMR) databases in Australia and the UK. Treatment regimens were defined based on location, with Australia as a proxy for analysing T&E and UK as a proxy for analysing PRN. The study included patients with a diagnosis of nAMD who started treatment with ranibizumab between January 2009 and July 2014. A total of 647 eyes of 570 patients in Australia and 3187 eyes of 2755 patients in the UK with complete 12-months follow-up were analysed. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were comparable between the two cohorts. After 1 year of treatment, T&E-treated eyes achieved higher mean (±SE) visual acuity (VA) gains (5.00 ± 0.54 letters [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.93-6.06]) than PRN-treated eyes [3.04 ± 0.24 letters (95% CI 2.57-3.51); difference in means 2.07 ± 0.69 (95% CI 0.73-3.41), p < 0.001]. Non-inferiority of T&E compared to PRN was concluded based on the change in mean visual acuity gains at 12 months. Over the 12-month follow-up, T&E-treated eyes received a higher mean [±standard deviation (SD)] number of injections (9.29 ± 2.43) than PRN-treated eyes (6.04 ± 2.19) (p < 0.0001). Australian patients had a lower mean (±SD) number of total clinic visits (10.29 ± 2.90) than UK patients (11.47 ± 2.93) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The higher injection frequency in the T&E cohort may account for the trend toward improved vision. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.

Treatment Frequency and Dosing Interval of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Routine Clinical Practice in the USA.

PURPOSE: To compare treatment patterns of intravitreal ranibizumab and aflibercept for the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in a real-world setting over the first 12 months of treatment. METHODS: A proprietary clinical database was used to identify treatment-naïve patients with nAMD in the USA with claims for ranibizumab or aflibercept between November 1, 2011 and November 30, 2013 and with follow-up of at least 12 months. Patients were considered treatment-naïve if they had no anti-VEGF treatment code for 6 months before the index date. Mean numbers of injections and of non-injection visits to a treating physician were compared between the two treatment cohorts (ranibizumab or aflibercept). In addition, the mean interval between doses was also investigated. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar for those receiving either ranibizumab (n = 5421) or aflibercept (n = 3506) at the index date. The mean (± standard deviation) numbers of injections received by patients treated with ranibizumab (4.9 ± 3.3) or aflibercept (5.2 ± 2.9) were not clinically different. The mean number of non-injection visits was 2.8 ± 2.8 and 2.1 ± 2.5 for ranibizumab and aflibercept, respectively. Mean dosing interval was 51.0 days (± 41.8 days) in patients receiving ranibizumab and 54.1 days (± 36.0 days) in those receiving aflibercept. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses for definition of treatment-naïve, length of follow-up and treatment in the index eye only. CONCLUSIONS: Limited data exist regarding real-world treatment patterns of aflibercept for the management of nAMD. Our results suggest that, in routine clinical practice, patients receive a comparable number of injections in the first year of treatment with ranibizumab or aflibercept.